The music industry is struggling to gain a foot-hold in the battle with online piracy. The options available for music lovers to grow their music collection digitally is tremendous and free. So much so that music companies and publishers have struck up agreements with some of biggest names offering digital music: iTunes, Last.FM., Amazon, Myspace, and Wal-Mart.
While the options are appreciated, a certain restriction that comes with the music files is not. To help music labels combat piracy, digital music providers such as iTunes and Yahoo introduced DRM restricted music files to consumers. Today, Wal-Mart has given consumers the number 1 reason as to why DRM was the worst thing ever.
Customers of Wal-Mart's digital music service will be in for a big shock very soon, just as Yahoo Music customers were. Wal-Mart has announced that they will shut down their DRM servers on October 9th. What does this mean for Wal-Mart digital music buyers?
If you have purchased protected WMA music files from our site prior to Feb 2008, we strongly recommend that you back up your songs by burning them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you will be able to access them from any personal computer.
Beginning October 9, we will no longer be able to assist with digital rights management issues for protected WMA files purchased from Walmart.com. If you do not back up your files before this date, you will no longer be able to transfer your songs to other computers or access your songs after changing or reinstalling your operating system or in the event of a system crash. Your music and video collections will still play on the originally authorized computer.
DRM restrictions ties all of your songs to your computer. To sum things up, customers will now have to back-up all of their downloads or risk losing them all. Because of the DRM restrictions on these files, you won't be able to transfer their music anywhere else. If you were to reinstall your operating system or simply purchase a new computer, Wal-Mart's shutdown of their DRM server would prevent you from taking your music somewhere else.
We're hoping Wal-Mart will do the right thing and refund customers a portion of the money spent, as Yahoo did when Yahoo Music shutdown. While the gaming community has been able to teach gaming publishers a lesson about DRM, we don't think anyone can provide a solution for the situation that Wal-Mart customers are going through.Will DRM-free music matter to consumers now?
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
If Wal-Mart can't pass the cost of the refund back to their suppliers - don't count on them doing the "right" thing. Since the suppliers won't take that heat either, it will be the customers who suffer in the end.
Posted by: Kathy @ Beyond Niche Marketing | September 27, 2008 6:55 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAH!
Posted by: Khürt Williams | September 28, 2008 5:26 AM
The title and the content on the home page of RWW gives reader a feeling that Wal-Mart might have come up with something which would prove DRM as a wrong ploy. And after reading the article, one just feels like Letterman did - On an ugly date.
Posted by: Krishna | September 28, 2008 12:01 PM
Considering the bitrate/quality is higher for the non-drm content, seems like they could offer upgrades to replace older drm versions...much like apple did with the introduction of itunes-plus...and for pennies on the dollar.
If they did something to that effect, I believe that walmart would be praised for moving to DRM-free downloads. Otherwise, their "solution" of jpeg-ing a jpeg is lame in my opinion.
Posted by: William | September 28, 2008 3:09 PM
I'M TYPING THIS IN ALL CAPS SO YOU IDIOTS CAN UNDERSTAND. THIS IS A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. IF THE COMPANY GOES OUT, YOU LOSE YOUR MUSIC. SO WHAT. JOIN ANOTHER SERVICE MORON. THE FACT IS THAT YOU CAN PAY 10$ PER MONTH FOR THE SUB, AND DOWNLOAD 80-300-1000GB OF MUSIC.......THIS IS THE REASON THIS IS A VERY CHEAP AND VIABLE SOLUTION. IF I HAD BOUGHT ALL THE MUSIC THAT I HAVE THROUGH RHAPSODY @ ITUNES INSTEAD. I WOULD HAVE SPENT 1000'S OF DOLLARS. CMON YOU IDIOTS. DON'T YOU SEE THE BIG PICTURE HERE? YOUR JUST MAKING EXCUSES TO PIRATE. END OF STORY
Posted by: ANONYMOUS | September 28, 2008 3:45 PM
Well let's hope that everyone gets reimbursed. I cannot imagine how angry someone who has bought hundreds of dollars worth of WMAs would feel if they could not get the backup done. Actually, should they not offer the music DRM Free after said date rather than railing the people by flat shutting it down?
Posted by: Adam | September 28, 2008 3:53 PM
Why purchase music this way anyhow? And torrents are so freakin slow that you can't get anything that's not the top-10-crapola to download, so the whole "I get free music on torrents" is a reasoning that's on its way out. It doesn't give you what you want without waiting days or weeks or months (unless you just love all the latest most popular canned music that others don't mind seeding).
I use SoundsBox, and downloaded 13 albums in one afternoon, the older stuff that I had on cassette and couldn't transfer to cd's, plus just singles I wanted. It's only 14 cents a track, even cheaper when you buy the whole album (for a measely $1 or so) and the interface is totally addictive. It's the future of downloading music, the best thing out there right now.
Posted by: SoundsBox | September 28, 2008 3:54 PM
if you download music from walmart, you deserve to get screwed.
Posted by: AaronJW | September 28, 2008 4:03 PM
Sadly, like most rousing "hooray for the underdog" articles of this nature you fall into the trap of believing that the consumer cares enough to make a difference.
People buy based on whether they've heard of a brand or not - not whether the brand's practices are ethical, etc. The only time ethical issues affect a consumer's choices is when they're big enough to hit the front page and prime time news - and this isn't. Like the Spore DRM storm-in-a-teacup the average buyer on the street doesn't know and doesn't care. Spore still broke the sales records and will continue to do so, if the product proves good enough.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that this proves DRM sux - but I'm afraid the public aren't going to notice until DRM kills their babies and Christiane Amanpour tells them it's bad from the streets of Baghdad.
Posted by: MichaelW | September 28, 2008 4:03 PM
"ANONYMOUS" How much money did you just make by posting your drivel?
What is hilarious is that I fully support Amazon's DRM free music store. The music available from Amazon is encoded at higher quality than what can typically be found on P2P networks, the download completes in seconds, and I can find songs that I cannot find on P2P networks. Not to mention that. . hey, if they ever go under, I get to KEEP MY MUSIC.
Funny how I am completely against DRM encumbered music, I don't support subscription music services, and yet I do not pirate my music.
Oh well, I guess decent people have to share the Internet with tools such as yourself.
"END OF STORY"
Posted by: Thomas | September 28, 2008 4:03 PM
and THAT is why i download music. i can't stand this whole DRM crap. NO ONE has any right telling any person what they can and cannot do with music on their computer. i still do buy the occasional cd, but i'm gonna come right out and be honest about it: 80-90% of music i have has been downloaded off the internet, and NONE of it has that DRM crap on it. before ANY person says anything about that, take a good, hard look at your music collection on your hard drive before you say a DAMN thing about my collection. the music industry is failing HARD because they cannot possibly expect for people to actually WANT to download their music that has DRM all over it. there's NOTHING the music industry can do about it either, so quit your bitching.
Posted by: graphicartist2k5 | September 28, 2008 4:12 PM
Why can't Wal-mart and Yahoo! be sued? They are still in business and not bankrupt. How can they simply stop providing services that were paid for in good faith?
Posted by: B. L. Yeer | September 28, 2008 4:58 PM
It's your fucking music but the artists should get paid you morons. That's what DRM is for. And if don't like it, buy the CD and rip it. But it's okay to steal it and share it. Geesh, all thieves.
Posted by: Gee | September 28, 2008 5:16 PM
@B.L.Yeer - because I'm sure the agreement that everyone agreed to when they downloaded it originally ensures that Walmart have no obligations to the consumer whatsoever. Pretty standard stuff so no surprises there.
Posted by: MichaelW | September 28, 2008 5:28 PM
Walmart should be forced to give their customers either DRM free music or at least a tool to be able to strip their DRM. DRM has created another ridiculous fiasco.
Posted by: Free Xbox 360 Premium | September 28, 2008 5:30 PM
DRM products are DEFECTIVE BY DESIGN! It is too bad that these companies are able to sell it in the first place. We need some major lawsuits against companies selling DRM products. If we can't get do it with consumer interest laws we have in place then the laws need to be changed.
Posted by: fjie923 | September 28, 2008 6:07 PM
I wish everyone would STOP buying music in ANY way shape or form. Hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook. make those idiots in the RIAA wither up and blow away with he wind as a distant memory. Losers.
JIff
www.privacy-center.ru.tc
Posted by: JIff Jones | September 28, 2008 7:49 PM
DRM is never the answer! No matter how much they try, they will fail.
Posted by: free xbox 360 | September 28, 2008 8:54 PM
Whoa! Walmart is shutting down its music store servers, meaning all the copy-protected music will go dark unless the customers burn it to CDs.
Posted by: website design | September 29, 2008 2:38 AM
So Wal-Mart is instructing their users to circumvent their own DRM, contravening the DMCA? There's something messed up about this picture.
Posted by: Adam Skinner | September 29, 2008 3:54 AM
Lawsuit.
Posted by: Nancy | September 29, 2008 10:13 AM
These comments are rather amusing. Buy a rewritable CD, burn the music to it, rip it back--DRM is gone. I figured this out a LONG time ago, and if I can firgure that out on my own, it must not be rocket science.
Posted by: Blah Blah Blah | September 29, 2008 10:39 AM
Why don't people buy at eMusic.com or 7Digital.com? No DRM and perfectly bona-fide legal and fast.
Posted by: Michael | September 29, 2008 12:13 PM
I think record companies like Sony should give up and go home on the piracy issue. Their already making a big profit on the MP3 player and the big money in music is now on the Road. Too many people want to keep music free and that's the way it's going to stay.
The Radiohead model is going to get bigger and bigger =
"Give people a free Radiohead album and they buy loads of Radiohead T-Shirts and Mugs."
Personally I don't mind if people download my music, I think of it like radio promotion.
AirHammer
Posted by: AirHammer Music | September 29, 2008 11:27 PM
I certainly appreciate your laments on the downfalls of DRM protected songs. They cause frustration and inconvience invariably. However, I do think that it is important as well to consider and remember why DRM was put into place to begin with. Not only from a business point of view, but from a historical point of view as well. Granted, it was not too long ago, but the music industry has been forced to change quite a bit over the past 10 years. At the time when iTunes was just unleashing the iTunes Store, Napster had just been shutdown, peer to peer was king of digital downloads, and the record labels were terrified of the idea of any sort of downloading of music. They tried to protect their intellectual property in any way possible, even creating CDs that couldn't be recognized by a computer at all, and part of this protection was the use of DRM in audio files. While it is certainly a hassle to deal with, it was necessary to have for the record labels to get the piece of mind they needed to allow iTunes and all subsequent legal download businesses to get started. Now, the distributors of digital downloads are slowly moving towards rescinding DRM restrictions, and I think you are entirely correct in saying that Wal-Mart has done a poor job of making that move. Whether through oversight or lack of caring, they have not considered the consumer at all. ITunes also is already offering some of their songs in a DRM-free format, and for previously downloaded songs, they offer a 30-cent upgrade. Even without the upgrade, the songs will not become obsolete. Wal-Mart should certainly offer a similiar protection program for those who will otherwise be left with inoperative audio files.
Posted by: Michael Ecker | September 30, 2008 5:57 AM
always always always buy music from amazon mp3 or other place that does not use drm. just be sure to back up all mp3s to dvds in case of hard drive failure. 1,000 songs per 40 cent DVD.
or just go to a.b.s.m. shh!
Posted by: Mark | September 30, 2008 7:39 AM
Whoa! Walmart is shutting down its music store servers, meaning all the copy-protected music will go dark unless the customers burn it to CDs.
Posted by: website design | September 30, 2008 2:16 PM
We are losing more and more DRMed music-download stores with Walmart joining Yahoo, Sony and Microsoft. A web design customer of ours told me that although, Apple's iTunes still offers about half of its catalog in DRMed, they come in non-iTunes Plus form sadly.
Posted by: Singapore Web Designer | October 1, 2008 4:27 AM
it's no different when people used to make recordings of vinyl albums onto analog audio tapes, and would make more copies for their friends and family. the only real difference is that it's happening on a MUCH grander scale, seeing as how ANY person can download ANY song just about at ANY time and either keep said song on their harddrive, or build up a compilation and burn their own cd. as i stated, there's NOTHING the music industry can do about it.
Posted by: graphicartist2k5 | October 5, 2008 3:44 PM